Tbf though I think most people would be saying that with regards to his batting per se. The reason he is the top of that list is obviously because he is an allrounder. Though I have no doubt Kallis would win many matches with his batting alone.

I think Ponting is mighty impressive in that list. Played with so many other match winners in his team for most of his career (both bowling and batting stars), yet he still has 16 man of the match awards.

I think Ponting is mighty impressive in that list. Played with so many other match winners in his team for most of his career (both bowling and batting stars), yet he still has 16 man of the match awards.

It works both ways. MOM is rarely given to a player from the losing side. So, players like Tendulkar or Lara would be a little hard done by the fact that they played for a relatively weak team for a considerable period of their career.

It works both ways. MOM is rarely given to a player from the losing side. So, players like Tendulkar or Lara would be a little hard done by the fact that they played for a relatively weak team for a considerable period of their career.

It works both ways. MOM is rarely given to a player from the losing side. So, players like Tendulkar or Lara would be a little hard done by the fact that they played for a relatively weak team for a considerable period of their career.

Doesn't really make sense. If they are many other match winners in the team, yes that means the team will win more often, but Ponting would still have to be the 'chief destroyer' to get the award. That was my point to begin with. Even in the presence of e.g. Warne and Mcgrath, who almost always would contribute to a victory, Ponting still has done enough to surpass their performances.

Throughout the 90s, India were never dominating outside home. The performances improved slightly once Dravid, and Ganguly arrived on the scene in 1996. The real turnaround started once Ganguly became the captain in 2000.

I think Ponting is mighty impressive in that list. Played with so many other match winners in his team for most of his career (both bowling and batting stars), yet he still has 16 man of the match awards.

It is impressive but I am more impressed with Warne. With runs, it's not so much a case of how many others your teammates make will limit you. Whereas with wickets your competition in the side directly affect the kind of impact you can have with your discipline.

It is impressive but I am more impressed with Warne. With runs, it's not so much a case of how many others your teammates make will limit you. Whereas with wickets your competition in the side directly affect the kind of impact you can have with your discipline.

Yeah that's true, but I was referring to the competition from other outstanding perfomances in a match. E.g. in a typical match with McGrath and Warne at least one of them usually puts up some excellent bowling figures, and then there are top batsmen like Hayden, Gilchrist, Martyn, Langer etc. who will also give Ponting a run for his money - yet he still manages to scalp many of the awards, which shows he must be doing someone pretty special quite often.

Of course, though. the same applies to any other players who happened to be part of the 'golden era' of Australian cricket. Warne had to compete with many star players as well for a lot of his career, so it is indeed just as impressive for him. I guess you could argue as well there is a more of a bias to give man of the match awards to batsmen than bowlers.